I love how China paints the US as the bad guy because it doesn't completely back China's claims; nevermind the US isn't completely backing anyone else's claims either.

The US is as close to as neutral a participant in this as you'll get (unless Switzerland decides to weigh in). Its interest is ultimately in avoiding another Pacific War and ensuring freedom of the seas and passage (including for its warships). It is not claiming any of the associated mineral rights, etc.

The US is not completely neutral, of course, since it perceives China as the greatest POTENTIAL military threat to the region.

For the US, the best outcome would not be Vietnamese, Philippines, Chinese, Brunei, whomever sovereignty over the South China Sea, but really a preservation of the status quo with respect to ship movements and conflicts.

Frankly, I think this is in every participant's long-term interest - set up an international regime allocating a sharing of resource profits based on whatever the claimants agree by treaty and agreeing to otherwise treat the South China Sea as international waters. This would create a stability attractive to international investors to develop those resources and also marginalize the US role. China would likely end up with the lion's share of profits given its power, but could do so working with the international system, instead of against it (which in turn would help its standing in other international disputes, not to mention international reputation which isn't strong at the moment).

Otherwise, the US will likely be to view China's claim as a threat to the international order and potentially close down vital international sea lanes. This will just continue the Pacific arms race that has already begun between the US and China, which could very easily inadvertantly trigger a war that would not be in the interest of any party.

And of course I'm not blaming Ms. Clinton for using that term. The Philippines has been a traditional ally of the US and China and Vietnam used to be enemies and are now neutral trading partners.
Obviously American loyalty to the Philippines prevails, which is just normal human nature.

BTW who is this "international order" that you speak of? Does it only consist of the Philippines, Vietnam, and the Filipino ally in America?

No country other than those 4 has really called for anything, and everyone involved as shyed away from the UN thus far.

What makes you think that Vietnam, the Philippines, or even the US for that matter is better at keeping sea lanes than China? Has China ever given the slightest hint that it would close sea lanes? Wouldn't it be against China's, a heavy trading nation, own national interest to do so? Isn't China fighting Somali and other pirates around the world?

America is heavily biased in this dispute because it wants to maintain #1 power for as long as it can without actually causing war that would be detrimental to all those involved. It's using the "keeping sea lanes open" justification to get involved because it's the only semi-reasonable one that it has.

Anyone can see this. You apparently have drunk the American koolaid and buys into everything the State Department says without analyzing any of its motivations.

China uses the same rhetoric BTW about its motivations, to keep sea lanes open and bla bla bla. Basically they're saying the same as the Americans but I guess you don't read Chinese media at all.

And hey according to Pew Research, approximately 40% of the world actually views China more favorably than the US. Those 40% probably trust China more than the US in keeping sea lanes open, which again is China's stated goals in the sea.

The US is powerful but it cannot dominate the world at will, and nobody outside of the US buys its crap about staying neutral in debates around the world.

The US claims to be neutral in the Israel-Palestine land disputes after all, and we all know that's not true.

Ms Clinton used the term "West Philippines Sea" because she thought in the name of the American neutrality that she had discovered a new sea and therefore had the right to name it. She is just a clown.

It's funny because in Thai, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Indonesian, and Portugese languages, the disputed sea that was referred to in this article is all literally named the "South China Sea." In every English language map that is sold outside of the Philippines or Vietnam, the sea is also referred to as the "South China Sea."

Ms. Clinton clearly knew this fact but chose to use the name "West Philippine Sea" instead. That act didn't exactly smack of "neutrality" to me.

The Americans of course always claim to be neutral arbiters all over the world because it makes it easier for the government to gain support for their actions at home. The rest of the world however usually do not view the US as particularly neutral.

The American bias in the dispute is caused by the fact China aggression in the region is a threat to the American economic and strategic interests and more importantly the world's balance of power.
Saying that it remains neutral is just an act of courtesy that can help the U.S alleviate its tension with China. By the way, according to the evidence and current events, China would certainly close the sea lanes if it won over other countries in the dispute. The plethora highly valuable natural resources can outweigh some of its trades with countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, in term of economic value.
Did you know how much effort the U.S and its allies spent to persuade China to participate in fighting against the Somalians? China wants to replace the U.S as the world police , but it refuses to accept the responsibility of a world police.
Imagine the world fell under the leadership of commies, life would go back to the stone-age. U.S still remains as number 1 by default because there is no better alternative.

lol no China would not close sea lanes even if it could take all of the resources in the SCS.

33% of world trade goes through that sea, and any disruption would wreck global supply chains. It wouldn't just be the 33% trade that goes away but global businesses would collapse due to the domino effect.

Why would China want to commit economic and possibly military suicide? It would seem pretty dumb to me.

I love how China paints the US as the bad guy because it doesn't completely back China's claims; nevermind the US isn't completely backing anyone else's claims either. ]

"China paints the US as the bad guy because" it is trying to create a "21st century version of Japan's "Co-Prosperity Sphere" in WWII", that is in a GLOBAL scale. To do that, it does not hesitate to 扇風點火 while pretending to be "impartial" (by courtesy of Alex65):

"Now, by singling Beijing out for criticism, but not the others, Chinese observers believe the United States has taken sides against China. This has undermined the U.S. assertions of a principled approach based on international law by appearing not to be impartial."

I like the map posted by economist website, it much more neutral than the one used in BBC for a thousand times - that editors are weigh too lazy to add the claimed boarder of other countries, only leaving a Chinese "U" to “prove" how greedy and stupidly bully the Chinese are.

The Burmese propaganda agents probably penetrated the BBC in order to install an inflammatory and biased map in order to generate more tensions and instability in the region, which makes it easier for the Burmese to continue and speed up their "quiet genocide" against the Rohingyas, Karen, and Kachin at home.

True, but just that they have company from Vietnam and maybe the Philippines in being greedy.

At the end of the day, the US just wants this peacefully resolved. We've already been through a Pacific War over similar "prosperity spheres", and would really prefer avoiding yet another one over unrestained nationalism. As my, and countless other grandfathers from many countries can attest, it's not a pleasant thing...

One fact that is often missed in these debates, perhaps due to the Burmese propaganda agents infiltrating these forums, is the fact that China, Vietnam, the Philippines, and certainly America are all responsible nations that value free trade, free business, free culture, free capitalism, and a free world in general. Sure countries often have their differences, but at the end of the day everyone is a global citizen and everyone benefits from the peace and stability of the world.
.
The "civilized and responsible" world (like 98% of it) have one true enemy, which is global terrorism and resulting genocides. Terrorism obviously brings no benefits to the world, and a terrorist's goal is to destabilize and distract the world while they conduct their own agendas, like genocide, quietly at home. The world must unite to fight against global terrorism consisting of the Burmese and their Al Qaeda puppets!
.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rohingya+genocide
.
In fact the most famous Burmese in the world (discounting politicians), unlike every other country in the world, are not scientists, sports stars, business men, artists, or anyone of value. They are actually terrorists, and they have been terrorizing their neighbors such as Thailand for a very long time.
.http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/05/myanmars-ethnic-armies#com...

Your comment here has nothing to do with the reading above. Fighting terrorism has nothing to do with this current issue. This conflict is not caused by differences in trade, culture and business. The dispute is attributed to the fact that China overuses its hard-power and bullies its smaller neighbors in the region. China fishing boats have destroyed the marine life on the sea by their heavy explosives and harassed other non-Chinese fishing boats. China drew the 9 dashed line map to claim its sovereignty on the areas which do not historically and geographically belong to it. Not enough, it asserts to legally own the economically valuable natural resources in the sea as well as the water pathways significant to U.S trades with its other Asian partners.Chinese military modernization merely is indicative of Chinese increasing aggressiveness for recent years.
Why would the U.S, Vietnam and the Philippines care so much about Burmese terrorism, which poses no threat to their national security and economic interests?

Actually, (and the Burmese propaganda agents are very good at hiding these facts), the Burmese are masterminding all of the disputes in the South China Sea.

Thein Sein is exerting his influence by bullying the Chinese and Viets to act more aggressive in the Sea while Suu Kyi is bullying the Filipinos to do the same. You have to look beyond their normal facade, which is designed to confuse you. They use terrorism in Southeast Asia to supplement to make people edgy and nervous, which increases the possibility of violence

Basically the Burmese want to create instability so that the world, and especially Burma's neighbors in the South China Sea will be distracted so that the Burmese can continue with their "quiet genocide" against the Rohingyas. They want to kill as many Rohingyas, Karens, and Kachins, and maybe even wipe them out, before the world turns their attention to Myanmar to stop them.

If you end Burmese terrorism that creates instability in the region then all powers will be much more likely to compromise and explore diplomatic solutions to resolve this disputes. Honestly you can't blame people, especially those in Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia for being on edge when there are Burmese terrorists/spies living among you.

BTW you don't hear much from Malaysia, Brunei or Taiwan in this dispute. In fact, you only hear stuff coming out of the three poorest (per capita) nations involved (China, Vietnam, and the Philippines).

Why is that? Because anti-terrorism screening in Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan are much superior to those in China, Vietnam, and the Philippines. When you don't have to live in fear all the time then you will naturally be nicer to those around you.

I neither argue nor disagree with your point with regard to terrorism in South East Asia. Actually, I think it may a good research topic. But it has nothing to do with the water dispute at all. The regional instability in the South China Sea is not the instability caused by the terrorism ( as you mentioned).
As far as I know, Burma 's never been involved in this tension at all. Ending Burmese terrorism wouldn't solve the dispute at all.

Calm down man. Wikipedia is good for someone who wants to know background info before doing research. I always search for the terms in Wiki before looking for books needed for my research.
there are few reasons why it cant be considered a scholarly or even semi-scholarly sources.The sources at the bottom are paraphrased from unknown writers. Sometimes, facts and arguments are not even cited and supported. It is difficult to track down the links because the copy right infringement issues.

Its unfortunate that many of our Chinese posters here, through no fault of their own, think the Americans, Vietnamese, Filipino's etc hold grudges against each other etc. Well, let's be frank, unlike Chinese people, they are more simple minded people who don't like far into the future, or hold grudges or think in terms of sophisticated conspiracies. That is a talent, they have yet to learn from the Chinese. Never assume people think like you do, even though on the surface they may appear superficially similar (ie Vietnamese).

The Vietnamese don't reserve any more hatred for the Americans, than they do for the French or Chinese. The Vietnamese treat the war with the Americans as continuation of their fight against colonialism. Its another chapter in their nationalist struggle. Secondly, its more complicated than Americans bad, when the South Vietnamese continued fighting until 1975. Vietnamese history books will tell you one thing, but there is a large group stilling living in South Vietnam that have a different take. Its like if the Nationalist held on to Southern China until 1975. Again, our little Red Pioneers need to use their imagination and learn to put themselves in the shoes of others

Well some of the Chinese posters were simply responding to the Burmese "master conspiracy plan" of how a US-Viet axis against China is highly unlikely. For one the Americans don't view the Viets any better than they do the Chinese.

According to PEW Research most Americans (58%) agree that they should build stronger relations with China. 30% somewhat agrees and only 9% disagrees.

Unfortunately there has been no poll concerning how Americans view Vietnam but I doubt that Vietnam would score any higher than China did. I think that China, for a communist country, scored unexpectedly well and I doubt that Vietnam, another communist country, could do any better.

Oh and on that note, as a response to the Burmese 1-Kyat-Army who happen to have "invaded, penetrated, and terrorized" these boards as well as even Western countries such as Canada, the only SEA country that was surveyed on "favor-ability views of China" was Indonesia, which happens to also be by far the most populous country in SEA.

58% of Indonesians surveyed had a popular opinion of China and only 37% had a negative opinion of it. (My guess is that if you conducted a similar survey of Burma, the vast majority of Indonesians would have a negative view of it for obvious reasons. I guess committing genocide against the Rohingyas makes the Burmese unpopular in Muslim Indonesia or something...)

Anyways most of the bad things to happen to this world is due to Burmese masterminding in the background. WW2, the Cold War, and especially the War on Terror were pretty much all masterminded by the Burmese. Basically the Burmese want to distract the world so that they can continue their genocide against the Rohingyas, Karens, and Kachin "quietly" at home.

I have family in Vietnam, so have to contradict you slightly in that the Vietnamese do have a number of conspiracy theories.

All that I've heard involve China - my favorite being that the Chinese are intentionally poisoning the Mekong upstream to kill the giant catfish (and other fish) to make the Vietnamese dependant on China for food aid.

I haven't heard any that sound remotely plausible, but I think telling in terms of whom the Vietnamese currently are wary of as the next colonial power...

Do public opinion polls really matter? Yes and no. The problem is China has potential conflicts with all its neighbours and it has a lot of them. When has Indonesia viewed China favourably, was it because of not having territorial disputes. Indonesian favourable view of China is new and could easily turn the other way.

The lucky thing is that Indonesians have a short memory, which just reinforces what I said. Most Indonesians have forgotten about PRC involvement in Indonesia's affairs in the 1960s. However, the Indonesian government officially has not. if you read the communique between China and Indonesia in 1994 when they normalized relations, both sides agreed to disagree on 1965, meaning it will be resolved until some later date.

There will always be suspicion of China in SEA until China comes clean about its involvement in the 1960-1970s, that will only really happen when China deals with the Cultural Revolution.

I have family in Vietnam, so have to contradict you slightly in that the Vietnamese do have a number of conspiracy theories.

All that I've heard involve China - my favorite being that the Chinese are intentionally poisoning the Mekong upstream to kill the giant catfish (and other fish) to make the Vietnamese dependant on China for food aid.

I haven't heard any that sound remotely plausible, but I think telling in terms of whom the Vietnamese currently are wary of as the next colonial power...]

If "the Chinese are intentionally poisoning the Mekong upstream", they could only make the Cambodians and Champas, NOT the vietnamese, "dependant on China for food aid". Maybe, the Vietnamese are just being ultra-paranoia?

"For quite a very long time, the world leaders have forgot Champa, and no ordinary people know anything about what has happened to Champa. By virtues of modern technologies, the history of the fallen Champa is now being revealed in the media networks and has attached worldwide attentions. The Champa’s history is the worst of all the world histories. The Champa’s enemy destroyed the whole country and everything it contained, massacred all its population, annihilated all its indigenous races and wiped out all the country’s boundaries. The Champa’s declared enemy is the north Vietnam, the Champa’s country is the so called central and South Vietnam and the Champa’s population and indigenous races are the Cham, Jarai, Radhe, Chru, Koho, Mnong Maa, Bahnar, Sedang, Cham Hroi and Stieng...Etc. The North Vietnam conquered the entire Champa’s territories and committed genocides on its whole population in order to expand land from North-Viet to south-Viet. The so-called central-Viet and south-Viet did not exist before the first half of 18th century. There is nothing left for the Champa’s survivors now but the conquered country itself which is absolutely priceless. The total number of the Champa’s living people today is estimated 1.5 million half of which live in Cambodia."

Public opinion should matter in a democracy. Of course popular opinion can easily change as you pointed out and a rich and powerful person/group can even spend money to change popular opinion of something through buying the media.

The median age in Indonesia is 28.5. How many Indonesians actually care about what happened in the 1960s? Speaking for myself, communism was "before my time." I have read about it but I have never experienced it one way or another so I don't have any strong feelings about it.

China only has problems with Vietnam and the Philippines right now. It has historical distrust with Japan (the Japanese also have long memories), but the China-Japan economies are so closely tied that there's too much to lose from these silly disputes. (There was another recent TE article that published a consulting report stating that a 1% GDP drop in China due to less investment in real estate would cause a 1.5% drop in Japan.) The South Koreans seem keen to remain neutral as long as North Korea doesn't blow up.

And I guess China technically has ongoing territorial disputes with India too, but world hasn't heard much about that in the past 50 years.

China is now India's largest trading partner, second largest FDI behind America, and the gov-gov relations have been quite good, yet there are still so many Indian China-hating trolls here on this website.

"The lucky thing is that Indonesians have a short memory, which just reinforces what I said. Most Indonesians have forgotten about PRC involvement in Indonesia's affairs in the 1960s. However, the Indonesian government officially has not. if you read the communique between China and Indonesia in 1994 when they normalized relations, both sides agreed to disagree on 1965, meaning it will be resolved until some later date."

That proved China and America or Britain are the same, they like to stir up conflict or problem in regions to benefit itself. See Tibet as an example.

BTW How can Indonesian have short memory when they have you as a berator ! LOL

China has no claim in the South China Sea whatsoever. The boundary they created is a figment of their imagination. They think they're strong on steroid muscle now. Other countries will defend their land. Bring it on.

Funny how a vietnamese urges Americans to roll up their sleeves pretending he is not a VietCom, but once talking about war with China he will point to VietCom's "achievements" against America/French/China. Do you think Americans have forgotten the grenades thrown at their back by you innocent children? The bamboo stick traps that penetrates and kills quietly which were set by the villagers? And the use of your military know how's and supplies you provided them right at you?

Pane Kane actually called for the US to invade Vietnam again in order to "liberate" Vietnam, which suggests that he probably isn't a Viet Cong.

But of course 99% of Vietnamese would strongly disagree with him. He seems like a delusional and poorly educated individual to me. He obviously feels strongly about these issues but is not smart enough to get a job that actually has influence over these matters (like at the US State Department), so he trolls the Internet in desperation instead.

He may get lots of recommends from the 1-Kyat-Army (or maybe there's only 1 Drone creating lots of accounts? who knows...) in the China section that is filled by the 1-Kyat-Army, but anyone with half a brain will tell him that his ideas are ridiculous.

The China section on TE is honestly pretty sad after it was invaded by the 1-Kyat-Army. Even CNN's and the WSJ's China sections, which is Kyat-terrorism-free, has more intelligent comments.

Official obviously. The Burmese believe in their own ethnic superiority and are not afraid to use terrorism tactics and kill in order to achieve their goals (see Rohingya, Karen, and Kachin genocideS), so they would not immigrate to other countries by their own accord.

Therefore all Burmese who live abroad are most likely 1-Kyat-Agent/Spies sent by the Burmese Ethnic Superiority movement in order to distract the West while the Burmese continue and expand their "quiet genocide" at home.

The problem is you assume people think like Chinese people, a big mistake. Chinese people unfortunately hold grudges, recalling events that happened 300-400 years ago. Americans don't, and the Vietnamese don't either. They have shorter memories.

The bamboo spikes (aka punji sticks), where not meant to kill, but injure soldiers as to delay the whole unit.

The problem is you assume people think like Chinese people, a big mistake. Chinese people unfortunately hold grudges, recalling events that happened 300-400 years ago. Americans don't, and the Vietnamese don't either. They have shorter memories.

The bamboo spikes (aka punji sticks), where not meant to kill, but injure soldiers as to delay the whole unit.

Well Obama is being criticized by the Republicans because he is supposedly too "friendly" with the Arabs. Establishing a military base in communist Vietnam would be like being "friendly" with the Arabs x10.

I doubt that even the diplomatic Obama would go that far. Romney sure as hell wouldn't establish a base in Vietnam as long as they remain a communist country. It would make him look bad to the hard nosed ultra-nationalists at home.

Hm, your history must have taught you the Vietnam war happened 300 years ago, and yeah you must have fallen into a bamboo trap and only had your head injured, histories and facts indeed, please learn both before commenting.

"Chinese people unfortunately hold grudges"
.
I must proved you wrong here, you are the good example of holding grudges.
Please learn yourself before opening your curry mouth! You should smoke some of my incense instead of these cheapy curry. LOL
.
USA can't hold grudges because they were the offender! The red Indians should hold grudges.

The bamboo spikes (aka punji sticks) were never meant to kill. An injured GI is much more troublesome to a platoon than a dead GI, because he slows down the unit. When a unit is slowed down, it can't flee from ambushes, it fights less effectively. A wounded GI puts two other soldiers out of action. Two have to carry him on a stretcher. If a person is dead, what are his comrades going to do, leave the body to pick up some other time.

These disputes are actually pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. They may be heavily propagandized and then tied to nationalism in China, Vietnam, and the Philippines, but most outside observers could easily see that any claim by any country to own the Spratly or Paracel Islands are weak. To anyone other than China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and China Haters (eg Burmese 1-Kyat-Drones), this is mostly a non-issue.

Anyways I think the China-Philippines dispute will be resolved in the near future (as in the next few years). Before the recent spat in the Shoal there were some serious talks of joint development of resources that would have essentially resolved the dispute.

The Philippines seem to be much more reasonable than the Viets, their claims on the Shoal (but not the Spratly) is probably the strongest of all claims in the Sea, and China knows that the Philippines has the backing of the USA, which will give China incentive to give ground.

Vietnam on the other hand has no chance. Their claims are just as dubious as (or even more dubious given their small size) China's, and they have no friends in the world to back them.

Good point, this is the 1st time I see a neutral view on this subject. South China Sea is in many ways share similarity to the Arctic race, think of Chuna as the US and Russia as Vietnam, everybody is trying to get their share and won't cooperate, in this situation whoever takes more islands wins. However, there isn't a single English media report that will tell the audience that Vietnam has taken more islands than the rest combined, and of course the general fools dont use google (or simply pretends so) .

the United State has become a world cop after it was attacked in the 9.11, to be exactly, after its establishment in the world.
However, a question must be thought carefully that should you allow a strange guy or a completely unfamiliar strong man,without your permission, to tell you"hey, you are not right on the issue, how can you bully a much weaker guy than you for only your hat." and teach the other side how to beat you, would you be happy?is it his business? i should never glance at him, and say:"don't you see he does wrong first and provoked me just the way the Bin Laden did to you ? why did you attack Bin Laden. in addition, i didn't bully him. it does not make sense that i am a bully just because i am more stronger and powerful! if so, are you, the United State and your friends, bullying the mid-east and the other weaker countries than you ?"
what's more, after the Anti-Japanese War, Chiang kai-shek government sent the maritime troops to explore and claim the sea according to the history.why not claim that the sea was yours until you knew you can be rich from resources in the sea. is it a robber's act, is it not?
i am a Chinese, why do you westerners has to think we are wrong and should not do if we don't follow your directions. I am anxious to know that if now is the Kuomintang that was in charge of China according to your democratic pattern, would you look at and judge this dispute of sea in another more neutral way or a way more satisfactory to you? that will be very funny to know the answer.

Do you know why the Southerners failed the war? As a Northerner, I'd like to tell you that it's because you Southerners were so futile that the US couldn't help you. You couldn't do anything, just relied on the US and cried out for the US helps. You can't say that you failed because the US stopped helping you. Judge yourself first, Phan Kane.

Phan Kane, you must grow up first. Now you hope that the US to roll up her sleeves? It's you who must roll up your sleeves, not the US.

Heh Phan Kane (who has now called for widespread violence many times now BTW) has drunk the koolaid of how mighty America is the savior to all of the world's problems.

What he doesn't realize is that Americans are self interested just like every other group of people in the world. Democracy may be better than authoritarian governments or communism, but American democracy is for Americans only, and not Viets, Chinese, Philipinos, or anyone else.

The "puppet democracies" that the US set up in Iraq and Afghanistan are of course done for PR reasons to gain support for those 2 expensive and bloody wars back home and in other NATO states, and thus to no one's surprise is failing in both countries.

American occupation of Vietnam or China (which Pane Kane has called for in his previous posts) will not work as long as the Viets and the Chinese don't want them there. It's the same reason why America's occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan have failed.

Heh the US dislikes the Viets even more than they dislike China. Vietnam has no friends in the world. (China is supposed to be a friend given its communist ties but I guess relations have deteriorated in recent years due to this dispute.) Tis a fact.

I don't think you can talk American into a conflict with China so that you can have a Vietnam war rematch.

Do you still hate the U.S. for abandoning the South Vietnam? Frankly speaking, American simply didn't give you enough equipments to counter the Soviet and China equipped north Vietnamese.

There is no reason to think that the South China Sea is a top priority of the US. Its importance is quite low, compared with the other US interests, such as revitalizing the economy and transforming the Middle East.

Also demonstrated the (in)significance of the South China Sea issue to America, is that Washington has been giving Israel and Egypt five billions every year for 30+ years, while it has paid practically nothing to Vietnam and Phillipines for all their troubles.

Don't be so confident (or arrogant to be more precise). Why do you assume that the South China Seas is low compared to Egypt / Israel / Middle East in general? If you actually spend time reading pre-2001 Pentagon you get a clearer picture.

America could be stringing the Vietnamese and Filipino's along until they give in and the Vietnamese allow US access to Cam Ranh and the Filipinos allow the US to lease Subic again. That is what the Americans want.

Do you mean another invasion of the Americans? If Vietnam and Philippines will go on with their wicked plans, there is no doubt that the Americans will invade and bomb them in order to satisfy their lust for blood.
Thank you Bismarck for illuminating us.At least you have more brain than Michael Dunne and Cristiano Machiavelli put together. They are hopeless cases.

unbelievable you would think in this way? why not say the US has been implementing his plan to dominate the world and first step is in mid-East. surely the US has no such idea. but China just want to get back its territory which is smaller than the whole mid-east, is it unlawful or unreasonable? dude, stop you prejudice over China!!

Don't be so confident (or arrogant to be more precise). Why do you assume that the South China Seas is high compared to Egypt / Israel / Middle East in general? If I actually spend time reading your posts I get a clearer picture that you are a Jew*sh defender, nothing more.

America is holding the whole world in its arms, and why are you still not happy and suppress the little commenters here in the internet. Go and smoke some good stuff I sent you and be peace. Make love with Melon instead of war (virtual war). LOL

Pre-2001 was a different era, different time. There had not been 9-11, the dreadful Iraq War, Greate Recession, ....

It was a good time that Americans wish to return. But not for Russians, Chinese, and South East Asians, for good reasons.

There is no significant advantage for the US Navy to return to Cam Ranh or Subic, other than the inexpensive girl friends. Those two bases are well within the reach of the PLA navy, air force, and missile force (DF-21Ds, etc.)

Will Washington pay the Vietnamese and/or Filipinos billions that could be spent on American sailors and civilians in Guan, Hawaii, and San Diego?

US navy is already subject to 10~20% budget cut, and will have to lay off many sailors, officers, and civilians.

I don't think the US will pay billions for Cam Ranh and Subic, because it is foolish to do so. The odd of having an Iran war is much better.

Or may be Bismarck is expecting a big salary cut (even donate his 7 or 70 billions dollars of Melon Bo) by Uncle Sam so as to finance the soldiers in Cam Ranh and Subic if there will be any base at all. ;-D, ;-D...

The US will not establish a military base in Cam Ranh without the downfall of the Vietnamese Communist Party. The legacy and popular perception of communism would prevent that in the US.

The US might have bases in a few authoritarian countries in the Middle East, but none of those countries were historical enemies of the US. Vietnam and communism, unlike Saudi Arabia or Qatar, brings back too many bad memories.

Each of these recent developments may very well be part of what Vietnam expert Carl Thayer of the Australian Defence Academy calls "strategic signaling" by the US to dance closely, but not too closely, with its rival China.

"The US doesn't want to get entrapped in taking sides in a territorial dispute," Mr. Thayer explains, referring to China and Vietnam's joint claims to the South China Sea. "If the US takes the lead too much, it'll be seen as part of the problem. It'll never been seen in good faith [but rather as] containing China, bullying China; pissed off because it can't stop China's rise and the American economy's in a bad way."

Vietnam, says Thayer, will not side with the US or China, but maintain its independence while being fully aware of both the political and military machinations going on in the background.

For Vietnam, this is all part of the political dance.

Major General Le Van Cuong, the former chief of the Stategy Institute in Vietnam's Ministry of Public Security, indicated as much when recently pressed on Panetta's visit to Cam Ranh Bay.

When the Filipinos allow the Americans to return to Subic or Clark Airbase, ex-Mayor Dick Gordon's Olongapo City will see "happy times" again, as old. Sad for the morals of the nation though. Those American GIs bring nothing but trouble. They don't bring good jobs, or factories that employ thousands of the poor Filipinos, so that they don't have to emigrate abroad to work as maids. Just unmitigated gall and greed. JohnMalone said it for all: "There's no such thing as permanent alliances; only permanent self-interest." this applied by the financial greedy bankers or rapacious militarists -- results in same awful outcome!

Besides, Gis are bad in math calculations. Those Vcongs or Filippinos dont want to be in same vicinity as these guys are firing their armaments...remember "friendly fires" during the vietnam war bby mistake? OOps, sorry Nguyen or Juan, didn;t mean to hit you.

[Phan 11th, 13:52
Chinese emperors have done it many times, they come from the cold, hash a small corner in north east China, they are Han people.
They prove their historical artifacts (weapons), invading and conquering their neighbors, Mongol, Tibetan, Cantonese, by force. Now all of them are China!]

Mongol, Tibetan became Chinese by The Principle of Reciprocity.

Champa became part of Vietnam by invasions:

"For quite a very long time, the world leaders have forgot Champa, and no ordinary people know anything about what has happened to Champa. By virtues of modern technologies, the history of the fallen Champa is now being revealed in the media networks and has attached worldwide attentions. The Champa’s history is the worst of all the world histories. The Champa’s enemy destroyed the whole country and everything it contained, massacred all its population, annihilated all its indigenous races and wiped out all the country’s boundaries. The Champa’s declared enemy is the north Vietnam, the Champa’s country is the so called central and South Vietnam and the Champa’s population and indigenous races are the Cham, Jarai, Radhe, Chru, Koho, Mnong Maa, Bahnar, Sedang, Cham Hroi and Stieng...Etc. The North Vietnam conquered the entire Champa’s territories and committed genocides on its whole population in order to expand land from North-Viet to south-Viet. The so-called central-Viet and south-Viet did not exist before the first half of 18th century. There is nothing left for the Champa’s survivors now but the conquered country itself which is absolutely priceless. The total number of the Champa’s living people today is estimated 1.5 million half of which live in Cambodia."

[They almost beat the US in Korea in 1953, they drove the US out of South East Asia in 1975.

Their tactic of invading a country is supporting the lowly educated, blood thirsty locals to kill their own people.

While the Vietnamese communists invaded and fight south Vietnamese to death; China invaded, killed south Vietnam soldiers and took some islands in the Spratly archipelago, then told the stupid north Vietnam leaders that they 'liberated' the islands to help them!! the lowly educated North Vietnam leaders believed the China!!!

[Phan 11th, 13:52
Chinese emperors have done it many times, they come from the cold, hash a small corner in north east China, they are Han people.
They prove their historical artifacts (weapons), invading and conquering their neighbors, Mongol, Tibetan, Cantonese, by force. Now all of them are China!]

Mongol, Tibetan became Chinese by The Principle of Reciprocity.

Champa became part of Vietnam by invasions:

"For quite a very long time, the world leaders have forgot Champa, and no ordinary people know anything about what has happened to Champa. By virtues of modern technologies, the history of the fallen Champa is now being revealed in the media networks and has attached worldwide attentions. The Champa’s history is the worst of all the world histories. The Champa’s enemy destroyed the whole country and everything it contained, massacred all its population, annihilated all its indigenous races and wiped out all the country’s boundaries. The Champa’s declared enemy is the north Vietnam, the Champa’s country is the so called central and South Vietnam and the Champa’s population and indigenous races are the Cham, Jarai, Radhe, Chru, Koho, Mnong Maa, Bahnar, Sedang, Cham Hroi and Stieng...Etc. The North Vietnam conquered the entire Champa’s territories and committed genocides on its whole population in order to expand land from North-Viet to south-Viet. The so-called central-Viet and south-Viet did not exist before the first half of 18th century. There is nothing left for the Champa’s survivors now but the conquered country itself which is absolutely priceless. The total number of the Champa’s living people today is estimated 1.5 million half of which live in Cambodia."

[They almost beat the US in Korea in 1953, they drove the US out of South East Asia in 1975.

Their tactic of invading a country is supporting the lowly educated, blood thirsty locals to kill their own people.

While the Vietnamese communists invaded and fight south Vietnamese to death; China invaded, killed south Vietnam soldiers and took some islands in the Spratly archipelago, then told the stupid north Vietnam leaders that they 'liberated' the islands to help them!! the lowly educated North Vietnam leaders believed the China!!!

Interesting that the 1904 edition of "The New General Atlas of the World" listed the Spratly Islands as British, along with Amboyna Cay. Its on page 22 of this fascinating atlas.
So I guess Brunei and Malaysia are the winners here when it comes to the Spratly Islands, not to throw gas on the fire.
Interestingly, no indication is given of ownership of the Paracel Islands. Neither on that page, nor the one giving a closer look at core Chinese territories (page 25).

As for 1402, I would have thought the Yongle Emperor was busy with consolidating control following conflict over succession to the Hongwu Emperor (who seemed strangely similar to Mao in some ways in terms of leading rebellion, land reform, willingess to purge and anti-commerce posture, etc.)?

And I am sure the Chinese have a map from 2014 too to delineate their claims....

Malaysia has no basis at all to claim part of the Spratlys. Their northern tip of Borneo is not even theirs. its part of the Old Sultanate of Sulo, part of the Philippines. They are just leasing this territory to the heirs of the Sulo Sultanate. so if their claim is based on proximity, it wont hold water because north borneo or sabah is being claimed by the Philippines as legal successor to the Sulo Sultanate

The best part of this dispute is the complete aplomb with which the Chinese try to justify their bullying and territorial claims. They keep mentioning the "historical and legal" basis for their attempted unilateral annexation of the South China Sea, but I have yet to see any rational legal justifcation as to why UNCLOS (ratified by China) would not apply in this situation. According to released WikiLeaks cables even Chinese maritime experts are at a loss to explain this rather blatant legal faux pas.
Even worse, requests for clarifacation are usually met with nothing more substantial than mutterings of 'imperialism' and 'hypocrisy' by the army of pro-PRC netizens. Of course it is easier to bring up 50 year old injustices perpetrated by the United States (even if this line of reasoning falls firmly within the 'tu quoque' category of logical fallacies) than untangle their own convoluted and hypocrisy ridden approach to this issue. Not to mention the fact that the Vietnamese (who ironically have a long history of suffering under Chinese imperialism) must find these meager rebuttals particularly unsatisfying.

I guess guest-ioesoei has never looked at a map of the South China Sea. If he had, then he would have seen that both the Paracel Islands and Spratlay Islands are outside of Vietnam's 200 mile EEZ as granted to them by UNCLOS.

Of course those two island chains are outside of China's EEZ too (the two island chains to not fall entirely into any country's EEZ actually), so that means that China is making questionable claims in international waters. I don't see how this affects the Vietnamese whatsoever, with exception that it makes it difficult for Vietnam to also make questionable claims in international waters.

China is right on the South China Sea with Sansha City prefecture right on it. China is the only country that occupies the South China Sea and that has an administrative set-up with the necessary infrastructural facilities.

Did you not read the article? China evicted the Vietnamese from the islands. I'm not one to focus on the past, but to commit such an injustice and then use such a claim as legal justification is not a solid position. Of course I am not suggesting the current residents be forced to abandon their homes, for that is unreasonable and not realistic. The Chinese are there to stay, as the recent administrative upgrade makes clear. A real solution (for the Chinese and Vietnamese) would be for the Chinese to be granted sovereignty over the Paracel Islands, and then offer genuine compensation to the Vietnamese. Since there is predicted to be immense wealth and resources in that area, the Chinese may offer this in the form of a joint venture in the exploration and extraction of the resources with the two sides negotiating the exact stakes. It is just an idea, and the most important element is that all sides exercise restraint, necessary with or without my idea since the dispute is not just between China and Vietnam.

Since you read the article, you might have noticed that Hillary Clinton has discovered a new sea which she named the West Philippines Sea. Do you also believe that she made such discovery? If you are so naive as to believe it then I understand why you believe in the other parts of the article.

One thing which always surprises me is how the western people can be so easily brainwashed by their media. They think that everything their media gives them is the truth. How can the western people be so simple-minded, I don't know.

Are you purposely making straw man arguments? Where did I endorse Vietnam's claims to the Spratlay or Paracel's? If you want to continue in this vein create another account and post these arguments yourself, but please don't attribute such rubbish to me. The point is China's handling of the dispute (firing upon Vietnamese fishing vessels and threatening further military action) is in clear violation of its obligation to settle these matters peacefully (as stipulated by UNCLOS).

China seems to think "might makes right" when dealing with its smaller neighbor, but then cry "imperialism" when they then turn to the US for help.

People like you are the reason debates like this get lowered to the level of a rag rug.

1. You cite an article of UNCLOS with no accompanying explanation of how said article clarifies any aspect of this dispute.

2. To make matters even worse, you throw in a couple of ad hominem attacks...but can't be bothered to add any other meaningful commentary.

For your information, Article 298 relates to the resolution of disputes "concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations, or those involving historic bays or titles..."

The most obvious use of this provision would be in a situation arising from enclosed bodies of water (like the Hudson Bay) that unambiguously fall within a nations historical jurisdiction. This situation is completely different in the South China Sea, which is bordered on three sides by other parties with competing historical claims. Article 298 is of little value in supporting your position because CHINA REFUSES TO SUBMIT THE MATTER TO ITLOS FOR ARBITRATION AS STIPULATED. Your own citation defeats your point.

Italy could very well claim the Adriatic on the flimsy grounds the PRC is using (the Romans having been much more a seafaring people than the Chinese). However, the PRC continues its unprecedented and ridiculous attempts to establish a national aquatic peninsula. So we are all still waiting for a clarification of the PRC's position on this issue.

' A real solution (for the Chinese and Vietnamese) would be for the Chinese to be granted sovereignty over the Paracel Islands, and then offer genuine compensation to the Vietnamese.'
/
/
sounds like a good suggestion to me.

One thing which always surprises me is how Jean Michel can be so easily brainwashed by the East-West dichotomy being perpetuated by some media outlets. He thinks everything his media gives him is the truth. How can Jean Michel be so simple-minded, I don't know.

At least if the Chinese media tells that someone has discovered the South China Sea in the twenty first century, I shall not believe it. In your case, the western media tells you that Hillary Clinton has named a new sea, you believe she made a great discovery. You are the simple-minded fellow.

Can you please post a link to a media source claiming the South China Sea was discovered in the 21st century?

So you think the Chinese discovered all the territory under dispute? Well even accepting your (dubious) claim to be true, it wouldn't change anything as the ICJ has clearly given 'discovery' a low priority when trying to establish sovereignty (see Indon v Malay for details ). Believe it or not "sovereignty" has a pretty clear definition under international law, and unfortunately the PRC does not get to make up the rules as they go along. Mark Valencia covers this issue quite thoroughly in "The Spratley Island Dispute" explaining the difficulty of establishing 'sovereignty' (as rigorously defined) over uninhabited islands. China (or Vietnam for that matter) simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. Of course the Chinese, with the most bellicose and egregious demands, rightly recieve most of the negative press. Not to mention the fact that it is the Chinese who refuse to submit the matter to arbitration.

Really there is no need for 'media interpretations' at all because China is cleary violating UNCLOS by refusing to submit the matter for arbitration, and violating Article 279 by continuing to threaten military action. You can look this up yourself if you don't believe me.

"sounds like a good suggestion to me"
Agreed. Unless things escalate out of control badly, this will be the likely settlement, in some form, some day:
"Chinese to be granted sovereignty over the Paracel Islands, and then offer genuine compensation to the Vietnamese."
Or, unless the Chinese shift posture and concede to having the Vietnamese take control of a few islands...say Triton and/or Discovery Reef (from eyeballing the Encylopedia Brittanica Atlas circa 1950)..

Who is this guy who keeps going on about Hillary Clinton and the western media? First off, no where in the article does it say Hillary Clinton claims to have discovered a new sea. She has started referring to the sea by a different name for political purposes I suppose. I don't see how that could be relevant to any actual outcome, it is simply political posturing. And i don't disagree that Western media outlets have bias, but this does not mean Westerners are all brainwashed. If one understands the bias is present and also looks for other points of view, then the bias can be minimized. For example, I also read Chinese, Indian, Middle Eastern, Japanese, Korean, Thai, and South American newspapers.

It seems to me this guys plan is simply to distract from the real issues. He is all rhetoric, which of course usually (and in this case) in not helpful. I'm glad some people liked my idea. This area should be a forum for such discussion. Now, as I said, to the three other countries involved...

Oh dear! How can you be so blocked-headed! Let me explain it as simply as possible. As you read in the article, Hillary Clinton refers to a sea which she calls the West Philippines Sea. No one has ever heard of this sea and no map shows such a sea. Actually the sea she is referring to is the South China Sea, which was known to the Chinese for thousands of years but she does not know it. She thinks she has discovered a totally new sea and therefore she has the right to name it. Hopefully some understanding is now dawning in your head.

You were crying for the Vietnamese and I simply pointed out that Vietnam's claims to the two island chains are just as dubious as China's (if not more so, given their small size and lack of naval history). How is this a straw man argument?

Anyways China and Vietnam were shooting at each other in international waters 1974. I don't see how one side is more "right" than the other in that incidence. You make it sound like China is invading Vietnam but the reality was that both countries were shooting at each other in disputed international waters, and the incidence was somewhat minor (compared to other stuff that has happened in the world since then) that took place a long time ago.

So if you're not an ultra-nationalist Viet troll (which you seem to be), why would you care about that event? Remember it happened during the Cold War and there were much worse things that happened to Vietnam (at the hands of the Americans BTW) during the Cold War.

China is not the only country that has made article 298 declaration that it doesn't accept the procedeures with respect to disputes concerning the interpretation or application relating to sea boundary delimitations as well as those involving historic bays or titles. For example, Australia has also declared:

"The Government of Australia further declares, under paragraph 1 (a) of article 298 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea done at Montego Bay on the tenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and eighty-two, that it does not accept any of the procedures provided for in section 2 of Part XV ( including the procedures referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this declaration) with respect of disputes concerning the interpretation or application of articles 15, 74 and 83 relating to sea boundary delimitations as well as those involving historic bays or titles."

Its when you attribute false statements to an opponent and then proceed to 'refute' said statements. You assumed that because I condemn the Chinese handling of the situation in the South China Sea (whining for the Vietnamese as you so eloquently put it) that I must support the Vietnamese claim to the Spratleys and Parcels. This is blatantly wrong, and if you had bothered to read this thread, you would know that I consider both nations claims to be rather weak.

You also threw in a few ad hominem attacks (Viet troll was it?) which also happen to be factually innacurate, so you are really on a roll.

Furthermore, the fact that Vietnam has a weak claim still does not give the PRC the right to go blasting Vietnamese fishing vessels as they did in 2011 (another point you seem utterly confused about). The fact that they continue to threaten military action is even more alarming. Is this clear enough for you?

@Cristiano Machiavelliin reply to Michael Dunne Aug 11th, 19:18
'Who is this guy who keeps going on about Hillary Clinton and the western media? ...'
/
/
I think you misjudged him (jean michel?) and he should be lauded instead. when one’s country is under constant bashing (slanderous attacks rather than positive criticisms), anyone with a sense of national pride and capable of posting like he did, would probably do the same to defend his country. the guy is good and good at it.
.
now about these islands, I suppose the same ‘Cristiano Machiavelli’ approach could be applied to east china sea, east sea (sea of japan), kuril islands, falklands, even Gibraltar and a host of other hot border issues. but when will politicians ever learn?

Sigh... I never actually refuted any of your arguments therefore what I said cannot be a straw man argument. All I did was make fun of you and the Viets. How exactly is that a straw man argument?

Also an ad hominem argument only occurs if I try to point out something bad about you the person in order to try to refute your argument. Again, I did not try to refute your argument so obviously an ad hominem logical fallacy could not have occurred. At most what I said was a personal attack.

Vietnam is also threatening military action. In fact I think it was a recent Viet law that passed which stated that Vietnam will use military force to "defend" the two island chains that prompted China's response that you are reading now. Is this clear enough for you?

Lol. This is pretty hillarious, I thought logic classes were part of the core curriculum at most universities these days.

"Sigh... I never actually refuted any of your arguments therefore what I said cannot be a straw man argument."

Its BECAUSE you never refuted any of my arguents that you were committing the straw man logical fallacy. "All I did was make fun of you and the Viets." Haha are you kidding? You tried to link me to Vietnam's claim of the Spratleys. I am extremely confident aqnyone reading your post would agree.

"Also an ad hominem argument only occurs if I try to point out something bad about you the person in order to try to refute your argument. Again, I did not try to refute your argument so obviously an ad hominem logical fallacy could not have occurred. At most what I said was a personal attack."

So now (to sum up everything you have said) you are trying to argue that your post had no relation to any of my points and you were just verbally abusing me for the heck of it. All other points notwithstanding, I think you are basically arguing that you are a 'troll' (ironic isn't it?)

All kidding aside, You pretty much just gave a textbook definition of an ad hominem argument (because you were clearly trying to discredit my points by calling me names...Viet troll, how much more 'about someones person' can you get??), and then tried to pawn it off as a 'personal attack' (again hillarious).

From Wikipedia:

"Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponents in order to attack their claims or invalidate their arguments..."

Also, just an aside, your (newest) argument is off because Vietnam's ehhh escalation occured in 2012...after the 2011 attacks. After those incidents, it would be odd if some kind of future military deterrent wasn't threatened. Anyway, I have established my points to my satisfaction, so if you want to further attempt to save face...I'm just letting you know expect an echo.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person A has position X.
Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

If I never tried to discredit conclude that position X is false/incorrect/flawed, how can a straw man argument occur? I can make as many other arguments as I want, but if I never conclude that your position X is incorrect, then no logical fallacy could have taken place.

"Anyway, I have established my points to my satisfaction, so if you want to further attempt to save face...I'm just letting you know expect an echo."

Yea maybe to your own satisfaction in your own little delusional world. Then you run away before you can be proven wrong again, lolz.

"I am extremely confident aqnyone reading your post would agree."

Umm no. Or better yet, print out this conversation and take it to one of your professors who teaches a field heavy in logic, and ask them who is right. But of course you won't because you are too afraid :(

And seriously, some of you American kids (who are probably studying at lower tiered universities) take one class in philosophy, hear about your professors talk about "logical fallacies", and start repeating them over and over again without actually learning about what they are.

Here I'll draw it out just to make it much easier for your puny little brain to understand.

Again, a straw man occurs when:
Person A has position X.
Person B misrepresents the position as position Y, claims that position Y is false and also claims that therefore position X is false.

What happened in this conversation was:
Person A has position X.
Person B makes fun of person A and also takes up position Y, Z, and a few others, but never claims that position X is false.

If Person B never claims that position X is false, then obviously no rebuttal was offered and no logical fallacy could have taken place.

Simple enough for you? (I'm being magnanimous right now. Normally I don't waste so much time teaching dumb kids some basic logic but I felt special pity for you.) I suggest spending some more time doing your homework and less time trolling the Internet.

I know I said I wouldn't reply, but the chance to finish refuting your venomn filled remaining point is just too good an opportunity to pass up.

Lol, Well your personnel attacks are getting more and more irrate, and that is usually an excellent indicator that the opposing party is at a loss for constructive things to say. Its funny that you are eager to pass yourself off as an authority in logic, but can't seem to avoid violating this basic rule.

So lets dissect your straw man argument shall we? You also turned to Wikipedia, but left out the most topical part of that entry. I am contending you were:

"1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position."

Here is the post in question:

"I guess guest-ioesoei has never looked at a map of the South China Sea. If he had, then he would have seen that both the Paracel Islands and Spratlay Islands are outside of Vietnam's 200 mile EEZ as granted to them by UNCLOS."

You try and contend you were just 'making fun' without taking an alternate position (which is odd since you make several pointedly anti-Vietnam slurs later in the discussion). But that begs the question...what on earth are you making fun of? It would be an exceptionally poor joke as nowhere in my previous post did I mention the Spratlay Islands, the Parcel Islands, EEZs, or the legitamcy of Vietnam's territorial claims. Or were you just making fun of pro-Vietnamese posters in general? It seems bizarre that you are trying to say you were ridiculing the Vietnamese and maintaining a neutral position on the issues I brought up...all at the same time.

Obviously your intention was:

a) Entwine my 'pro-Vietnamese' post with Vietnam's claim to the Spratlay and Parcel islands (otherwise what is the point of your post, you only mention 'me' twice...and its in conjunction with your 'refuation' of Vietnam's position).
b)Discredit Vietnam's claim to said islands as just as baseless as those of the PRC, thereby subjecting the entirety of my 'Pro-Vietnamese' position to ridicule (attacking the straw man).

Part A is accomplished by the statement:

"I guess guest-ioesoei has never looked at a map of the South China Sea. If he had, then...."

The sentence suggests I was beholden to a factual inaccuracy (the assumption, clarified by the next statement, being that I consider Vietnam's claims correct).

While:

"...he would have seen that both the Paracel Islands and Spratlay Islands are outside of Vietnam's 200 mile EEZ as granted to them by UNCLOS."

Fufills the requirements of B. Sorry but you are stating a fact here, not providing the punchline of a joke. Since this statement is grammatically linked to 'me' the only conclusion is that it was a delusion I was laboring under.

Now, I would (with an enormous degree of confidence) present this as a straw man argument to any professor of logic. The only point you may be able to quibble about is that this is more of a 'Red herring' since your point really had nothing to do with mine. But I would think 'straw man' would fit closer with the usual structure of the fallacy (as you generously provided). Its a cute trick that you try to argue you were making fun of me and taking a position unrelated to mine....all in the same sentence. So no matter how vociferously you insult my intelligence, you would still be considered wrong unless you can actually refute mmy arguments.

Anyways your "argument" wasn't really much of an argument at all but rather a rant/opinion about how the Chinese, in your opinion, complains about American imperialism too much for your tastes. So why would I want to refute an "argument" like that? It seemed a lot more like an opinion rather than an argument to me.

More interesting, perhaps, is the aplomb with which the US is playing divide and conquer in it's "Pivot to Asia" to re-assert economic and military dominance based on "National Interest" and how it stands on UNCLOS without ratifying it. Bravo! Command performance!

The window of opportunity for China to claim back the SCS and the Daiyoutai Island is now. Why now? Europe is in disarray and will soon breakup, perhaps partially. U.S. is also in disarray and will soon fall off the 'fiscal cliff'. The electorate here in the U.S. have no appetite for another MIC adventure. Japan's government are like a revolving door, so just wait for the next Prime Minister to emerge who would play down the dispute. Vietnam is too dependent on China for growh and so is Philippines. ASEAN is just a 'Club Med' association, nothing more.

It is to China advantage to manage the islands dispute in a low confrontational manner so as not too create any major ripples around her neighbors. The Chinese top brass are not stupid to fight a war over these islands. Patience and slow bilateral negotiation is the way to go. Who know, China will throw a bone to those country who are willing to negotiate. Perhaps, they will help Brunei and Malaysia to joint develop oil field in the SCS.

The window of opportunity for China to claim back the Pacific region is now, but not mainly because 'U.S. is...in disarray and will soon fall off the 'fiscal cliff'.' The critical reason is that Uncle Sam is in short stockpile of rare earth elements and it takes 5-7 years, possibly a decade, to ramp up the skills and infrastructures to develop those RE oxides to a 99.999% precision level good enough to replenish American strategic military parts and armaments, ie drone missiles, Abrams tanks, stealth bomber, satellites, etc. (Gareth Hatch's Rare Metals blog or www.technologymetalsreview.com)

In the meantime, like I said in earlier posts, since Uncle Sam cannot engage in protracted wars now, all it can do right now is ruffle up China's feathers, do mischiefmaking (something they're good at.. just observe the cyber terrorists here at TE forums) and try to destabililize China from with in and from external proxies, as nkab mentioned. It's something they learned from the Vietcong during the Vietnam war, called "asymmetric warfare." Those newfound friends of Uncle Sam, the Vietcongs, raised this type of warfare to an artform even Sun Tze would have been proud of.

I think the skills are there (or could be revived), it is more the infrastructure.
You do have mining schools in the US, as demonstrated by the Colorado School of Mines.
Mineral extraction has not been an American problem. In fact they excel at it (see coal mining and other hydrocarbons)
More like laxness in letting an industry get swamped by foreigners as well as allowing environmental concerns trump things have been the problem (I think thorium and other like elements are spread all over the huge rare earth deposits in the US).

See President Polk in ending the joint administration of the Oregon territories with Britain. Basically led to the creation of British Columbia as well as the states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Key point, Polk was able to sate the nationalist crowds within the US (the "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!" crowd); remove a key point of contention with Britain and more importantly come out looking like a winner.

Also freed him up to deal with Mexico (consolidate control of Texas; seek a purchase of Alta California).

“Sorry folks --- THERE WILL BE NO USA-CHINA WAR
A situation of "MUTUALLY -ASSURED-DESTRUCTION" (M-A-D) exists between China-USA

HOWEVER--- this does not means that they would not use Pawns or Proxies to fight and to die on their behalf
e.g. The USSR very brilliantly used N.Vietnam as a proxy to fight the USA -- VIETNAM WAR
Resulting in 3 million dead Vietnamese ( 55,000 dead American GIs)”
==

I agree that such an all out war is unlikely because of MAD, not of “mutually assured destruction”, but of “mutually assured deficiency”. But no one should be afraid of war for justice.

Beides, unlike with others perhaps, there is no historical national hatred or baggage between China and the US. They could and should stay partners for prosperity for a long time to come.

On the military front, neither country is capable to administer total destruction of the other, not any more in today’s warfare (calamitous to be sure, but not total destruction). Bitch n moan all one like, but the economic interest of the two are so intertwined that one probably could not live well without the other.
But when reason yields to ideological hysteria, when value of supremacy overwhelms over that of equality, and in the heat of so much provocation up front and stirring up behind the scene, there is indeed a posibility of some war this time.

To this end, the West is seemed determined to stop China’s peaceful rise pulling all their stops. Getting China worked up to some war on border matters is one of them.

Clearly there is greater short term incentive for the US to start a war of some kind. It would be good for US economy and less objectionable to American people (than say during Vietnam war) since its troops are no longer drafted but recruited (meaning the upper and middle classes are therefore less personally involved in the gamut of killing and dying than before).

IMO, China has little capability nor ambition to fight offensively away from home or across Pacific Ocean. But despite disparity in military might, the odds weigh in differently near its own turf, China is well prepared defensively near its home court.

When it comes to its legitimate territorial interest in South China Sea and East China Sea, China does not seek confrontation, but it will not duck away any forced upon it, IMO.

While people are focusing on Daioyutai Island, one ought to realize that Japan has no legal ownership right of Ryukyu Islands. It only has administrative right as transferred to Japan by the US in 1970s.
.
Of the 140 some years of occupation by Japan, Ryukyu people have never given up its struggle for independence.
.
Readers who reads Chinese are referred to the following links of Phoenix TV of Hong Kong for an excellent account of Ryukyu Islands history and their struggle for independence against Japan, from 1972 to 2007:
.http://bbs.ifeng.com/viewthread.php?tid=13739984
.
1972--2007琉球人民抗日斗争历程表http://bbs.ifeng.com/viewthread.php?tid=13740098
.
It's time for Japan to quit claim of Daioyutai, as well as to return Ryukyu Islands to Ryukyu people for full independence. The US, as champion for independence, should see to it.

Well there is history - The Satsumae controlled the Ryuukyuus from 1609 onwards.
Japan secured the Ryuukyuus as a prefecture 1879, well before the China-Japan war of 1894 (which the Allied War powers focused on in 1945).
Otherwise, the Potsdam Declaration left the way open to revert Okinawa back to Japan:
"Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender.....
The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine"
Considering the Okinawans still speak a dialect of Japanese, probably not unreasonable to expect reversion to Japan.
I have heard of some Chinese nationalists trying to widen the dispute of the Senkaku Islands to encompass the Ryuukyuus. Interesting imperialist talk. Guess I can't blame them since they stand in the way of Chinese access to the open seas from soem swath of coastline.
Pretty much a dead end exercise though. Some guy who was pro-independence ran for an office in Okinawa, and won less votes than I have in local elections.
The pro-independence stuff has fallen to the way side. Probably ushered along by Japanese who have embraced the vision of Okinawa as a Florida of Japan (and retired down there). Some also went down there out of interest in the culture and crafts (including friends of my wife).
Can't say I have heard any pro-independence sentiment while down there....pacifist certainly but not pro-independence.

Exactly as said in Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender.....

"The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine"

You see NO Ryukyu "defined" there and Ryukyu was and is not exactly "minor islands"; and the "we" you cited includes China and China has never "determined" Ryukyu being part of Japan. Come to think of it, neither did the US.

Like I said before, Japan occupied Ryukyu for about 140 years (from 1879-1945), they committed cultural genocide and ethenic cleansing (over 200,000 murdered) in scale and proportion worse than Spanish did in South America. Please do not white wash it for Japan with some "local dialect speaking".

Japan has no legal ownership right of Ryukyu and that's a fact.

I agree that the Ryukyu ownership and independence movements have been brought up here again because perhaps of Daioyutai Islands news stories, but that's to be expected and unavoidable today. As a result, there is increasingly international awareness that such issues can not be hidden any longer and need to be addressed one way or the other.

Options being talked about, even in the US, including Ryukyu independence, another state of the US, or anything but Japanese occupation, check it out for yourself, or at least read or have it translated of the link I cited.

This post takes a far too black and white approach to the legal issues at play when discussing remaining colonial outposts. The most important doctrine in international law, in the post-WWII era, has (and will continue to be) the "right of self-determination." It makes little sense to discuss the status of disputed territories without taking into consideration the wishes and interests of its current inhabitants.

Attempts to qualify this right based on past historical grievances have been rejected by the UN general assembly.

The best interests and wishes of a territories current inhabitants will always take precedent over redressing 200 year old injustices. Thus the legal status of Ryukyu is directly impacted by the prevailing opinions of its residents.

Yes, and the prevailing opinions of the time, the 1960s, was reversion to Japan.

With respect to Nkab's comments,

I guess by right of conquest the US had the right to dispose of Okinawa as it saw fit. Like the Russians with the Kuriles and Kaliningrad.

Unlike the Russians, the US did't permanently displace the 320,762 civilians left on the Okinawa after the battle (source: Downfall pg 72). Probably could have, and brought in Philippine workers instead if the US was willing to be more ruthless.

Not sure if the 80,000 Okinawans evacuated prior to the battle were repatriated.

If you ever saw a passport from immediately after the war, you would see a stamp declaring "This passport is not valid for travel in....the main islands of Japan, Formosa, Nansei Shoto and Nanpo Shoto and Korea." (Source: my grandfather's).

Regardless, US arrangements for Japan became essentially a fait accompli and international fact. The US ran the occupation pretty much as a solo effort, which the Soviets came to accept.

And the US dictated the contours of the peace treaty ultimately signed, which both Chinas and the Soviet Union had disagreements with at the time.

Think its a long tail for Chinese nationalist to pull to try to detach nansei shoto (the ryuukyuus) from Japan, and probably counterproductive. Probably more constructive to quietly fund pacifist groups that jump on whatever the Americans do down there (say introduction of the Opsrey, ABM facilities, etc.)

Japanese polities occupied the RyuuKyuus from 1609 to 1945. Thats 336 years.

The Satsuma were not the nicest people but don't recall genocide in the context of wiping the entire Okinawa populace out. Perry found a pretty stable community there, and for good reasons, the Satsuma were using the Ryuukyuus as a backdoor for international trade, a seemingly approved loophole to the Tokugawa's closed door policy (along with the more public Deshima Island).

I don't know of any country that doubts Japan's ownership of the Ryuukyuus. Don't recall seeing any games with maps (unlike Japan showing Etorofu in the Kuriles as part of Japan).

The allies did decide and/or accept in reality US paramountcy in the occupation of Japan and disposition of Okinawa. The CCP, which didn't even come to power in China until 1949, had no say in this matter.

I am well aware of independence movements. I have actually been down there mulitple times. Those movements have run out of gas.

You said: "I guess by right of conquest the US had the right to dispose of Okinawa as it saw fit. Like the Russians with the Kuriles and Kaliningrad."

===

I think that's how it should be told from you instead of beating around the bushes with deficient legal ownership stuff trying to justify Japanese illegal occupation of Ryukyu Islands.

Be it as may, the US only gave Japan the de facto power to occupy Ryukyu, it could not and did not provide any legal basis of Japanese occupation of Ryukyu, let alone ownerhip.

Lawyer I am not, but I know that no title of interet can be legally transfered to any third party if that interest involved tort to the party of interest that remain unsatisfied. Ryukyu people never did yield Japan, or the US for that matter, any quit claim deed of their ownership, you know.

Japan thus has no case here, it wouldn't get pass any municipal court of say, Moscow (of Idaho).

And China of coure and definitely has a say on this, China was a party to Cairo procliamtion, a charter member of UN, a member of UNSC, and a member of allied command accepting Japanese surrender (with PRC replacing and inheritting ROC).

But I am not speaking for anyone but myself and there's no strategy to speak of. Only that the will of independence and legal right of self government as an independent nation of Ryukyu people should be respected and uphold by the rest of the wolrd. And they will eventually.

What about a trade war? what if The American consumptions on Chinese products drastically decreased. Although the U.S economy is unstable now, but it doesn't mean that it would lose in the potential arm race against China. Chinese economy appears strong but may have flaws that will bring an end to its economic miracle in the future. For example, its in-land natural resources are depleted and its air is heavily polluted. Maybe its time to move its factories into the islands and extract as much gasonline as possible to fuel its ongoing industrial evolution.

Though "property rights" are of visceral importance to me personally and therefore affect my world-view, I must acknowledge that in the basic principle of allocation of resources, China's 1.2+ billion population, must have a broader entitlement.

That would be a fair point, but it could be much more fairly accomplished if China were willing to deal with the other ASEAN nations involved multilaterally rather than bilaterally, because on the contrary China gains a significantly unfair advantage in negotiations.

Your argument should have nothing to do with the matter but even for the sake of argument it is taken into account, China is dealing with countries with population densities that rival or possibly even surpass its own. Both the Philippines and Vietnam have populations approaching 100 million each and they have vastly less geographic area than China. So even with this impertinent logic applied, China still has no argument.

For all those who want to compare the Falklands with the specs of dust in the South China Sea, well the British fought for it and won.
If the Vietnamese decide to fight for those rocks and sand in the South China Sea and they are backed by the USA – just think Vietnamese strategic and tactical cunning combined with US firepower – the outcome is clear. China will lose such a war and its navy. From then onwards the South China Sea will be called the Vietnamese Philippine Sea. I suggest you all start saving for a new map.
But all is not lost for China if it wants to follow on the path of the bully. If China can wait for another ten years the situation could be very different. In the whole of history there is no such thing as a stable Multicultural Society. By bringing in so many hostile people into above all, Western Europe, the West has instigated its own self destruction. Keep in mind that Iran will have a nuclear bomb soon. It actually takes only one nuclear bomb delivered by van and detonated right near a nuclear plant to disable Europe for good. An act like this but also other Muslim destabilizing factors in Europe will distract USA attention from the blobs in the South China Sea. If China really wants to have them just wait until the West has moved further towards its own self destruction.

So, you too, like Hillary Clinton, has discovered a new sea on the map and you name it the Vietnamese Phillipines Sea. As for Hillary Clinton, she has made the same discovery and in the same way as you did. But she has named it the West Philippines Sea because she knows Ferdinand Marcos very well from the days of Bill Clinton as President. But then also she knows Imelda very well too and like Imelda, she loves shoes. Initially she wanted to call it the West American Sea, but Barrack Obama did not like it because the sea in question is too far from the US. She also wanted to call it the Hillary Clinton Sea but Bill objected to it because Monica Lewinski might not like it. Finally, she named it the West Philippines Sea and boasts her great discovery to her friends, her colleagues and the media. Obviously, the media lost no time to headline this "great" discovery, the greatest in the twenty first century, comparable to that made by Christopher Columbus five hundred years ago. But the hic is that recently, Hillary Clinton has been told that in fact China had discovered the same sea a few millenia before. She was very much surprised and stupefied. Now she has asked Bill to send her back to school where she can learn geography.

Don't think the US will aggressively back the Vietnamese in military activity or even a show of force anytime soon.

Not sure what the reference to a multicultural society is supposed to mean.

How is stable defined since the standard could vary considerably over time?

How is multicultural defined, since the rise of the nation state led to consolidation of facets of culture, like language?

Look at the Roman Empire and Ottomen Empire. Were they stable, probably not by our standards? Were they multicultural? Yes, particularly pre-Christian Rome, although the Ottomens certainly had Islamic culture be paramount.

Did they last a long time? Yes.

Think the fears of Iran are overblown. The first bombs will likely be heavy, possibly of rickety quality (see possible North Korea fizzles, Pakistan), and would represent enormous, controversial investments that the Iranians would not likely risk very casually.

Evil US is using third parties to reach their goal --- cementing its no. 1 position in the ecnomic world through diplomatic means. It has been so afraid of the rising/prosperity of China since fortune in the world is limited, the growing fortune in the East means the loss of money in the West. Each country has the right to protect its wealth but not in such gross way!

You could argue that Gorbachev gave ground when it came to spheres of influence for the Soviet Union (that is the Warsaw Pact countries in 1989).

The US returned the Panama Canal Zone, returned Okinawa to the Japanese, and promoted a number of island nations out of trust territory status. And the US consented to international arbitration on a number of items in prior times, like with the Alaska boundary with Canada (Canadians were not happy); and some islands in southern Philippines (the US lost that one - the Palmas Island case)